But what "peter kropotkin" said to you here, and the way they spoke to 'you' here, "immanuel can", was not much different from the way 'you' speak TO "others".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:35 pmHow kind of you. When I need your help, I know where not to call.Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm If you are not intelligent enough to understand one of the fundamental
questions of philosophy, of the relationship between the state/society and the individual,
I really, really, really can't help you...
As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout 'your' writings, here in this forum.
How, exactly, would the elimination of a weapon created for the purpose of KILLING, not be in the interest of society, or the wrongly named and misnomer 'humanity', itself.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:35 pm
I can track the question just fine, thank you. Fine enough, in fact, to see problems with your construction to which you seem oblivious.
But your "gun" example, on which you hang so much, is clearly slanted to produce the assumption that the elimination of guns a) is in the interest of society, and b) is practical by social fiat. Both assumptions are highly contentious, but you've treated them as unproblematic.
Are either of 'you' AWARE that individuals have different views, and NONE of them align to just ONE view like the other wrongly worded and misnomers of 'liberals' and 'conservatives'?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:35 pm So if you don't see the problem with your example, it's only because you see only your own side. The case looks simple to you: much more simple than it ought.
Guns aren't an instance of individual-against-state. There are both individual and state reasons for both sides. Taking the issue seriously would mean understanding that, before you go on.
Not only that, but you've wrongly assumed the individual/state controversy is the same as the conservative/liberal controversy, rather than that the sides in the liberal/conservative controversies have different ideas about what the state should do, and what is legitimately an individual domain -- in other words, both conservatives and liberals have views of the individual, and views of the state. You missed that, too.
I agree.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:35 pm So what is a state versus individual issue, Peto? It's not the ones you've listed, for sure. Having a clear case would help you launch a better conversation.
Why is there seemingly ALWAYS this perception of the "other side"?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:35 pm And you might really be surprised how the other side thinks.
Naturally the Universe works with two opposite or other things, working in opposing or other ways, and the Universe could not work in ANY other way, but there does NOT necessarily have to be an "other side" of much else that I can SEE, on a very quick and first GLANCE and THOUGHT here.